[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bundlelisation of the backend
From: |
dejaeger |
Subject: |
Re: bundlelisation of the backend |
Date: |
26 Mar 2001 00:59:49 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 |
RFM> I think that the function pointers should go in GSMethodTable.h along
RFM> with the rest of the backend interface. I also think that it makes
RFM> more sense to have the concrete implementations of the functions be
RFM> methods of NSGraphicsContext ... since almost all of them use the
RFM> current context anyway, so having them use 'self' is easy. Also it
RFM> makes more sense to have them as methods of this class, again so that
RFM> all the backend interaction uses the same mechanism.
ok, I'm moving everything in this way. I first did the other way
because it was very short to code. Now, I find that it is painfull:
edit GSMethodTable.h, NSGraphicsContext.[mh], write inline functions
in NSGraphics, .......Pfffff.
RFM> declare the class GSBackend
RFM> I'm not sure about this ... couldn't NSGraphicsContext perform
RFM> this job?
yes, probably. Because we can load a category that's define in a
bundle. It should work.
RFM> * Headers/AppKit/GSWraps.h: remove all the declaration. Include
RFM> AppKit/GSBackend.h instead.
RFM> I think the two functions in GSWraps.h should be inline functions
RFM> indirecting off the table. I guess they could stay where they are
RFM> or be added to NSGraphics.
well, I have no opinion on this question. If nobody gives one, I will
put everything in NSGraphics.h.
RFM> * Source/SharedX/screen.h: new file
RFM> * Source/SharedX/screen.m (_GSWindowDepthForScreen): put an
RFM> underscore in front of the name.
RFM> (_GSAvailableDepthsForScreen): same.
RFM> Could have been added as methods ofXGContext in XGContext.m
yes. but the code won't be shared anymore with the dps backend. For
the moment, I leave them here. But now, they are method of a
category of XGContext.
- Re: bundlelisation of the backend, (continued)
Re: bundlelisation of the backend, Fred Kiefer, 2001/03/22
Re: bundlelisation of the backend, dejaeger, 2001/03/24
Re: bundlelisation of the backend, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2001/03/25
- Re: bundlelisation of the backend,
dejaeger <=
Re: bundlelisation of the backend, dejaeger, 2001/03/26
Re: bundlelisation of the backend, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2001/03/27